Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wants To Power Self-Driving Cars With Software, Not Build One (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft's Peggy Johnson said at the Converge conference (Warning: WSJ source paywalled) in Hong Kong this week that the company is not interested in manufacturing its own self-driving cars, but instead is interested in building software for cars. "We won't be building our own autonomous vehicle but we would like to enable autonomous vehicles and assisted driving as well," said Johnson, head of business development at Microsoft. "We in different ways enabled a variety of different partners and you'll see us continuing to do that." Microsoft is open to partners requesting an operating system for cars. The company has partnered with Harman to integrate Microsoft Office 365 into its infotainment systems, bringing Word, Excel, and PowerPoint to cars for the first time. "You're sitting in the car for many, many minutes a day. Can that be part of your new office, can it be your new desk, a place where you actually get work done?" asked Johnson. "We believe it can." Two years ago, Microsoft unveiled their "Windows in the car" initiative to compete against Apple's CarPlay.
...to blue screen of death! :: CRASH ::
I've been a systems engineer since 1995, and before that worked networks and as a technician.
Based on my experience with the reliability of Microsoft products: I will never EVER put my life in the hands of Microsoft.
If the car runs Windows (or a Microsoft product) I won't own it or ride in it. Simple self preservation.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I'm very pro-self driving cars, but the thought of Microsoft, with their unenviable record on security and stability, running the thing? Oh, hell no. I'd walk first.
Microsoft will have difficulty being successful in this area, for several reasons:
1. They would be entering this market very late. Many car companies are already in bed with software partners.
2. They have no expertise in developing high reliability software.
3. They have no expertise in developing real time control software
4. They have a poor track record with UIs anywhere but the desktop.
My impression is that Ms Johnson was just ad libbing, and not really expressing Microsoft corporate policy. The only examples she gave were that people might want to view Powerpoint slides on their dashboard computer, or use it to update Excel spreadsheets while they are stuck in traffic. I don't think she would have said something that stupid if she was prepared and had time to think about what she was going to say.
My prediction is that Microsoft will only get involved in the human facing entertainment side of car software. If they do get involved in actual control software, I predict they will fail.
...and not for the reasons you might think.
Yes, we can all make jokes about blue screens and bugs and stuff.
But the main reason I'd never take a car with MS software in it; MS is a serial murderer of their own products. They jump into any and all potential markets, do their product and then when the beancounters say that the profit charts do not look like a hockey stick with infinite moneys in the horizon, they drop it like a hot potato. Sometimes for another version of the same thing, often for some new initiative. Either way, anything you buy from MS has a lifespan of 1-3 years, tops. For cars that is a terrrrible deal.
(see: Zune, "Plays for Sure", original XBox, Windows Phone, PC Joysticks, Kinect, any number of games-related initiatives - Games for Windows, Microsoft Flight, Flight Simulator, Project Spark, Fable...)
As soon as the beancounters say that this thing here isn't raking money hand over fist and has no immediate prospects to do so, they'll toss the whole thing to a bin. Updates stop etc. I already have enough MS-related paperweights (physical and software) that would otherwise be serviceable, but MS no longer supports them.
This is also the reason why I could never touch HoloLens. The tech & idea looks sweet, but I know that by the time beancounters have determined that it will not make then gazillion bucks, they'll just pull the plug and you'll have an expensive piece of junk with no more software support.
The only things they seem to be keeping up are lates XBox version, Office, Windows and DirectX. And even on DirectX they seemed to require outside prodding (Mantle and new generation of consoles) to get them going. In other words, they would've been happy to sit on the old software stack, but there was a real risk they would lose a major competitive advantage (Windows, gaming) if they decided to ignore third party advances there.
So, buy a MS software filled car and find out that 3 years later software updates stop and, if you are lucky, that means your in-car entertainment system is now rapidly degenerating into a non-working state, if you are unlucky your car no longer works.
You're sitting in the car for many, many minutes a day. Can that be part of your new office, can it be your new desk, a place where you actually get work done?
Or, how about our employers stop finding new and increasingly intrusive ways to gain from us our endeavours, and we just read a book in the car instead?
These are the steps, in order, Microsoft will go through:
Microsoft will work on a self-driving car for a very short time and figure out they cannot do it fast enough to compete.
They'll partner with another company. There will be lots of hoopla, but nothing will come of it, and the partnership will dissolve.
They'll buy a company which is well-respected and doing well/poised to succeed. It will rapidly go down the toilet and they'll sell it.
[ optional step ] They'll come out with their own product too late.
They'll partner with successful companies to get hooks into cars which link to their other products. This will be marginally profitable. They will attempt to use this to gain as much leverage as possible. This may or may not be successful, but will anger people.